Difference Between Objective and Subjective

In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

When to Be Objective and Subjective
Objective : it is important to be objective when you are making any kind of a rational decision. It might involve purchasing something or deciding which job offer to take. You should also be objective when you are reading, especially news sources. Being objective when you are meeting and having discussions with new people helps you to keep your concentration focused on your goal, rather than on any emotions your meeting might trigger.
Subjective : can be used when nothing tangible is at stake. When you are watching a movie or reading a book for pleasure, being subjective and getting caught up in the world of the characters makes your experience more enjoyable. If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective.

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.
Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.

Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.
2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.
3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

Custom Search

Help us improve. Rate this post! (142 votes, average: 4.43 out of 5)

Loading...

Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.

251 Comments

There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That is a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith. I don’t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a fair game. Both boys and girls feel the impact of just a moment’s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.

“The sun shines in the daytime” maybe both subjective or objective depending on where you are. As is “the sun shines in the nightime” may also be subjective depending on where you are.
But in fact the sun always shines 24/7. So all the comments are objective. It is a fact. It is just our viewpoint of the facts that change, so our view point is subjective not the action.
So Roy, your basically right!

I don’t understand how that statement could be either objective or subjective officially, when to state that as an absolute would simply be an untruth. I would state “the sun shines in the daytime on this part of the world (where I live)” as objective, only. When you break it down that the sun always shines is clever, but then it makes your sentence untrue. School me.

I think we’re encroaching upon the realm where the use of words that haven’t been around as long as “subjective” and “objective” is helpful. One such word that comes to mind, is “truthiness”. … A statement can be objective without being “facty”. The absence of factual reference with the statement doesn’t make it any less true. And a statement that is more “facty” than “truthy” can likewise be subjective. This comments section contains a great deal of info on the subject. The impressive comments in this section were written by people who will likely regret taking the time to do so. So many better things to write about. Where might I find y’all’s other writings? Blog or something?

In a legal sense, yes there can be subjective-objective truism.
The sun, ie a star, shines light because it is a star. Does the sun shine (light) during a rainstorm? at night still? Yes, of course.
Is it a true statement that the sun shines (always) in Foggy Bottom (London) or in Scotland?
Is there a sound when a tree falls in the forest?

I realize your comment is from 2012 but I’m not sure you understood the article

“The sun shines in the daytime” is objective.
“At night the sun still shines in the daytime” would also be objective.

“I like the night time cuz I enjoy gazing at the stars cuz I think they are beautiful” would be subjective.
“I prefer the daytime cuz darkness makes me think of monsters and ghosts because of all the horror movies I’ve seen” would be subjective.

Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective.It becomes your reality. “Your Reality”. Every thing you see, taste, or feel is basted on your subjective reality. The number one, which some people would claim is an objective absolute is based on other peoples subjective reality. The problem begins when I am willing to do anything to force you to except my Reality. AS fare as I’m concerned when someone claims there is a “one” and you have to except that no matter what. We have a problem. Then I no longer have to subjectively look at the number one. Learning stops Sorry if I am missing the argument but I wanted to express my subjective reality.

Expressing your feelings is what subjective things are about which make them sort of biased. There is nothing wrong with venting per se. However, the subject was never “let us vent our emotions about such and such”. The objective does not become subjective ever. Both can be present independantly at the same time. The issue with most people who think “all is subjective” is admitting where did you get this belief from. Were you born with that belief? I doubt it! I claim that most people learned such a thought from authortities such as a parent, a teacher, firefighter, police man, any one a child might admire. Since you were taught as a child to listen to authorites and respect authorities when you hear them speak their words hold more weight than Joe Blow off the street. Being that authorities deal with humans they tend to have to know psychology. So the culprit for teaching allis relative and subjective is Pyschology as a subject. You certainly won’t find a math teacher say that multiplication is subjective. You won’t find a mucic teacher that says that the C note is subjective and what ever you like it to be. So you like most people from childhood do what you are told and nothing more (with this topic at least). Even if you take religion such as Chrisitianity there is no subjectivism about what the ten commandments express. You, like millions of people who do what they were told, confuse reality with your emotions or desires. Your agreement is NOT needed for something to be a fact. Who cares if you disagree with anything? That does not address the issue. If I oppose abortion for instance, then it is not enough to say I disagree with abortion. I should have true reasons that lead to my conclusion. If I use false statements, then there is a good chance the reasoning will go wrong. So true statements are required as reasons –not you feelings. You ignore the obvious fact that if you claim is true then the claim is an absolute and not subjective. It is not subjective because there is one answer for all. there is no false instance. Thus, you make no intellectual sense for you disprove your claim “all is subjective”. I say if your claim is true then the result doesn’t support your position AND if your claim is false that “all is subjective,” then your position is again defeated. You are wrong in either case logically. Your statement, “Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective” appears to be a result of that authority raised background: “Sit down and listen, boy . . . !” Being that there is no authority in your view, YOU put YOURSELF in charge as the authority! Can you provide any evidence for the claim “Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective?” I don’t know what it would take to prove that claim and chances are you don’t either. You are simply trained to think that way and you can’t rationally defend it. You do what you are told to do as a good boy should. As an adult, there is more room for independence and a wider range of views.

All objects are the product of Subjects. There is no way Object can come to existence without Subject been the producer. For instance, the New York Giant (object) came to existence after we (whoever thought of, confirmed, supported or participated it) agreed its creation. Our imaginative thinking (Subjective) originated this object, the New York Giant.

Yes. The name New York Giants was made up. Whoever made up or agreed with this name & meaning, further progressed that imagination. Much like the actual names of ‘the people’ or ‘person’ that made up the name ‘The New York Giants’. All those that followed suit with the imagination of ‘their’ parents for those creators names…. IE; the Governent, friends & so on, are just furthering that lie or more politelty said, the subjective imagination of whomever started it.

Another classic mistake. This is a psychological view which makes no sense ultimately. For instance, on the Science Channel on Time Warner Cable (Channel 111 in NY) there is a series called “Life After People”. In this series scientist predict what would happen if all humans left the planet and live elsewhere to prevent extinction. According to Mustafa there would be nothing in existence on the planet one the last human left or died from the Earth!!! We know this to be blatantly false. Think about it, did dinosaurs come after the human race or before? Here is your claim:”There is no way Object can come to existence without Subject been the produer.” So if there were no humans around I suppose the dinosaurs could not have existed?? All of the dinosaur fossils are man made?? Also consider astronomy: black holes can’t possibly exist with Mustafa’s theory since no human has witnessed nor a camera has witnessed a real black hole in action. There is not one astronomer or scientist that will claim we have live photos or live video of a black hole! So there is no witness. Clearly this busts holes in your psychological theory. There is no way to scientifically deny ALL dinosaur fossils. So there is no way humans created a name before humans existed. Dinosaurs predate humans unless you have some evidence . . . ? Thus your claim : [Dinosaurs] “(object) came to existence after we (whoever thought of, confirmed supported or participated it) agreed its creation. Our imaginative thinking (Subjective) originated this” [DINOSAURs]? Clearly this is NOT TRUE correct?

Dinosaurs, Black holes, Fossils was labeled (made up) through the imagination of a being that also labeled themselves human. No matter how you look at it, the name comes from one that either is trying to teach others to believe in what they have made up by calling it the same name or label as they wanted you to, or they’re following the teaching of the one that has taught them that name or label that was made up. Either way its all made up & understanding this is genuine and actual Intelligence & not just second hand Intelligence such as what every human has when they believe whats been made up with artificial Intelligence.

” So if there were no humans around I suppose the dinosaurs could not have existed?? All of the dinosaur fossils are man made??”

Are we (Humans) the only imaginative thinkers out there? No!

Prior to the Dinosaurs there must have been an another entity or thinker. You can call it “Creator” if you want to. It is because of this THINKEr who (subjectively) thought of dinosaurs that DINOSAURs (now an object) came to existence.

The dinosaur fossils are not man made but, for sure they were made. The question here is not who made it but, it is what happened before they were created? Probably some thinking had taken place. This thinking or mental work (subject) is what produced the dinosaurs or fossils (object).

Interesting point Mustafa. In the begining what is seen as an object is trying to be described as being objective, yes? Whatever it is, it is there, no? Well then we give it a subjective word or label to describe that object, in the hopes that the word becomes as objective as what is said to be there in the first place, an object which is now also a label. The target is to bring the subjective word to have as much objective meaning to itself as we wanted the object to have, hence the word ‘human’. US, you, me, I, we etc…This is an attempt at trying to leave no argument or dissent from anything that would say otherwise. It’s Tyranny in word play, as opposed to Free thought. Which is exactly why I don’t agree with any definition in the dictionary for any word. I can easily find the opposite to be true for anything said to be good or bad, right or wrong. Ugly or beautiful, retarded or normal.

I can see where you are coming from but you are not fulfilling your ideas. Humans give names to things in order to speak about them. You seem to be taking authoritative power too strong as if there is a person force feeding the public to subjectiveness. Definitions have several purpose, not just one. One important purose of a word and its definition is to make a distinction between things: we don’t want people thinking about a cat when we really mean dog; we don’t want people to think “let us party hard” when they hear the scream “FIRE”. Definitions should isolate things so people can think the right object at the right time. There are good definitions and BAD definitions: bad definitions don’t really distinguish anything and are TOO Vague. In Deductive logic we want to give ALL the relevant DATA needed. In other words, shame on you if you have more information and you aren’t stating that information. There ought to be a law: no with holding information I know you have access to!For instance, if I know you witnessed a crime and you purposely refuse to say anything — this is a BAD thing and not because I feel a certain way. Good reasoning has nothing to do with the emotions of the person which this is called “Objective”. I simply state all relevant facts to correspond to a conclusion. We need words to discuss things easy. We need definitions that people can all be familiar with so you understand me. For example, a dangerous situation arises if some one asks you to pass the bread and you pass them a poisionous serpent. So you are going TOO extreme to say you don’t trust any definition even in the dictionary. Some definitions regardless if they are in the dictionary or NOT in the dictionary are BOTH good and BAD. The good defintions are full of specific details which you SHOULD not have a problem with. Consider the defintition of a circle. What objections do you have? You can’t keep running “the MAN” is holding you down in society and keeping you in low places. Because a human made the term up there is no just cause to attack the source because this is like flipping a random coin: sometimes you will be correct and there are times when you will be incorrect. Bad definitions do appear in authority sources and in dictionaries. The dictionary is NOT a parent to tell you what to do; the dictionary is only a GUIDE to suggest alternatives to you when selecting words. Deductive reasoning limits or eliminates the incorrect answers you can give. This is why deductive reasoning is important. In practical terms Validity has a history: we know such and such leads to a false conclusion because the pattern has repeated many many times. We also know correct reasoning patterns have ONLY true INSTANCES as opposed to instances where the solution is 50/50. If there are no false instances, we can conclude certainty not MAYBE. Your views would be better presented if you come down from the extreme thoughts you have about all is subjecive. Your thinking is inconsistent with your beliefs right now because so many humans have run this argument BEFORE you, so you are running game. You are against authority but then you do exactly what the authorities told you to do. Hard to argue for something you are a victim to. If all is subjective then why kiss up to authority? The only solution to that is you are aware of BULLIES. Bullying someone has nothing to do with intelligence however. The MAN is a bully is that your whole point on everything? (The MAN, is a metaphor of course for some metaphysical being that prevents success). So to you there is always a BULLY and the fact that there is a BULLY makes all subjective? Is this an accurate interpretation of what you are trying to express Cheyenne?

Roy Said “Consider the defintition of a circle. What objections do you have?”

I have no agreeance nor objection. You may be able to explain yourself better in some other language that says something completely different yet you picture it being that exact same object. 🙂 In reality it is meaningless to me. All of your definitions & this is the kicker. Yes all of what you picture my definitions as being. I don’t define things. I believe in freedom. Change happens with everything

Never have I seen such intelligence and wisdom in the same place as such ignorance and idiocy, it’s ricieulous.

First of all, the definitions of the terms given by this article are not only true, but they are universally agreed upon and understood (by logical minds apparently) to be exactly as they are defined above, and so to the author a Kudos, you have done an excellent job at explaining the (fact/truth Independant of opinion AKA objective) and ( relative opinion of a person AKA subjective) they are what they are, this is not left to argument or discussion and anyone trying to justify the meaning of these words other than what is stated In the article is utterly foolish, and obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Take your egos down for a second people learn to listen and think before you speak.

Now, if you wanna get philosophical and arbitrarily waste your time discussing the effects of subjective on objective or vice versa, you are lost in translation and just don’t get it.. These words are more than words
They are a dichotomy, a duality in perception vs. reality and whether you understand their places and relevance or not, they are what they are.

Simply put

Objectivity is ultimate truth, irrespective of any outside input or ideas, it is what it is.

Subjectivity is opinion on relative perspective on objective reality, aka
Your thoughts and feelings on what you perceive (the objective world)

They are coexistant, equal and opposite in their nature, but work together to perpetuate our ongoing lives, our minds and our thoughts in respects to how we relate to the universe we live in second by second.
Again, don’t really care how long any one of you eloquently try to rebut this, this is not left to interpretation this is agreed upon fact. Get your heads out of your behinds.

If you deny these meanings and truly subjectively believe that this article is wrong.. Than I can tell you objectively, you are wrong, and subjectively that you are a fool.

Open your mind before you open your mouth.

Your words and actions have consequences.

Don’t spread ignorance out of ego and arrogance.

To the author and all that truly understand and apply these valuable gifts of perception, I commend you, for you are clearly a lucky and blessed few.

You are trying to make a case which you already know to be false.
Here is your extraordinary claim: “Are we (Humans) the only imaginative thinkers out there? No!”
I would like to know which ones you refer to. Name three!!! You already cop out by saying “call it the creator if you want to.” This last statement clearly means YOU can’t name another life form with imaginative thinking besides humans! Now you try to play “well it is possible role”. Do you not see you went from a specific claim [Humans are not the only imaginative thinkers] to a claim which you could not provide a single example or proof and YOU ARE NOW expressing this: it is possible that there are other life forms that can produce imaginative thinking besides humans. Going from a specific to a vague is a no no when you have detailed information. Slick move, but not good enough. Your argument is not original and has been around for ages. It has been refuted several times. Yet you still want to go with it? At least be imaginative yourself instead of rehashing an ancient argument which is not intellectually sound.Your argument is the rehashing of Designer argument which ultimately violates logical laws and commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Any Atheist would point this out in this form of the argument all you did was change some words around to disguise it. This is why I specifically ask you to name the other entities. YOU CAN’T!! You Knew this before writing your comment. Secondly, I am not aware of a single rational human that puts the human brain or the same level as a squirrel or an single cell organism. Thus, the evidence around you clearly displays humans are the top of the intellectual chain then you go off into some possible life form out there somewhere theme. Deductive reasoning goes from What we know to what we are trying to prove. You skipped steps and violated intellectual concepts that have been in place for thousands of years. Practically speaking, deduction is the recognition of argument patterns. Because there is a LACK of imagination in argument forms, logicians can tell if an argument is sound or not sound very quickly. People are running the same lame excuses and patterns of reasoning: the bus made me late, the dog ate my homework, etc. The reasoning patterns are not SUBJECTIVE nor do the rules of deduction change depending on the topic of the argument. The reasoning patterns are known to exist because they have been repeated thousands and thousands of times. If you were a street hustler you would be “running game.” Sophistry is one way to say it: being a con man is another way to say the same thing. You should not run with an argument you know has flaws. You too are making a claim that is absolute then claim all is subjective simultaneously. You make the absolute claim that an imaginative thinker [A SUBJECT] must exist, without an imaginative thinker present nothing [the OBJECT] would exist, then you conclude that a non human life being able to have imaginative thinking ability POSSIBLY exists (NOT MUST exist, which then would be consistent with the other claims.) This is independant of me. These facts I wish you would address. These facts are evident and NOT OPINION. Facts are satements that are forever true. If you can come up with counter examples I would love to see them but do not include what people BELIEVED to be FACT like people BELIEVED the EARTH was Flat. I refer to actuall facts by the definition I gave which is accurate — not emotional nor pyschological.

Also you got to remember Mustafa. What a human calls a human, (themselves i hear) have not been around that long. They label or name things after the ‘thing’ named, had already been around. It’s why you still hear of ‘us’ finding new species to label. Even though they had been around for much longer than that shiny new label its given. All things have been around for much longer, than this self appointed identity maker that wants to come along & place names upon all life. ‘Dinosaurs’, that name came from a human that came along and named it such a thing after the effect. When what you may call a dinosaur was walking the earth, there was no one here that labeled it such a thing at that so called time. It was made up later & apparently with the intent to try to act like it was so smart, that you hopefully wouldn’t figure that out lol. Labels and names in the begining were mostly used for ‘itself’ to identify with. Not others that looked like itself but individually for itself (the first so called human) only to try to identify such a thing to itself & later to other so called humans. Which meant later when other things appeared to be around, that looked shockingly similiar to itself, it thought that ‘we’ must also recieve a name. ‘Human’ was born, the name. The name did NOT come before the one that thought of such a name for itself. It wasn’t really a gamble now was it? Because that same yearning that ‘it’ had is the same yearning all ‘humans’ have in seeking its own understanding to the world around it. It was the first one & go on trying too learn everything anew like it had to, especially after it already has something in place that you will sorta understand.. Think about it, the Dinosaur was doing what humans call ‘walking’ upon what they NOW call ‘the earth’. Now obviously what you may or may not call ‘ The Earth’ was around way before what came along and labeled it such a name lol. ‘Humans’. We do our best at figuring shit out but we are not the smartest crayon in the box.

Wow for someone who believes they are so intellectual, you sure are off base when making a statement that all things are subjective. My 9 year old daughter knows that there are objective items out there how can you not see that? What a waste of brain matter.

Josh, if all life knows that all life is “making a statement that all things are subjective” wouldn’t that mean that all life is objective in knowing all life is subjective……… I don’t think anyone, including your dumbass daughter knows anything more than you do, or i DO.

Original writer writes. ” It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true” Yep. It is up to each and every one of us. All 7 Billion+ of us. There is no wrong answer. There is only ‘YOUR’ answer. Peace

I would say “NO” to the objective being able to point to something or point to a source. Objective in the philosophical sense refers to a true statement regardless of your awareness. Your awareness is not important. Thus the proposition “there is life on Jupiter” is either true or false even if I have no evidence or source. All objective propositions do not conform to science right then and there as in the Jupiter example. Your definition seems to point to science is objective or if something is objective then science must be involved to prove it. Proof is not AWARENESS. Propositions are true or false in their own right and do not need your awareness to be true or false. I explain this bad pattern of reasoning way above this. You have to go back almost a year worth of input to read the common poor reasoning patterns and poor definitions of “objective” so many humans are infected with.

Yep, awareness is not important. Your idea that something can be true or false, is only what you wish were true or false, it isn’t anything more than you or ‘someone’ saying it is. What you say is nothing but meaningless babble & gibberish to me. Doesn’t mean you have to know what i know is true. Because even though what you say is meaningless gibberish, i’m very happy that you are free to make up whatever truth’s & lies you like, along with what truths & lies are to you. Be free to do so cus you should be & are. Also what you claim is life may or may not be a claim that only you make but that doesn’t really matter. It does not mean anything is true nor false. Again it’s meaningless to me. Nor anything at all really to anyone, other than to yourself & its only there to help you ease your own conscience in the lack of understanding that things are not always what you say they are. Feeling in control helps you feel at ease & i want to see you feel at ease. All the way down to your most passionate ‘truths’ that you hold personally or collectively. Therefore your claim is void from having any bearing on true or false beyond your own self or selves. As a human, the human race or some rooster that happens to still have his head etc….

Your post is a psychological rant. You might as well say all things are meaningless! I wrote extesively way above, if you scroll up a few months, about a person who is being a deliberate “jerk”: one who instigates looking for trouble, i.e., a racist cop who pulls you over for no legit reason and dreams of “finding something” to bust the driver. Another example would be the jerk drill Sergeant who walks around dorms with white gloves looking to find dust. The Bible indicates Satan seeks trouble acting as a lion roaming around seeking whom he may devour. I have given a few examples of what you ar doing. You make no sense saying there is no “right” or “wrong”, no “true claims” or “false claims” and then you disagree with me; and then say there is no objectivity. I mentioned previously on more than one instance you destroy your own position by acting against it. Psychology has done a number on your thinking — and not in a good way.

O Roy, Have you not looked up above at a couple of your 600+ word arguments that you’re having with people on their different opinions from you. All the while you keep claiming ‘but what i write is not an opinion, its fact for everyone wether you like it or not’….. I take back what i said earlier about Roy is king. But rather, Roy is king of psychological rants. 🙂

I call Cheyanne’s post rants simply because this person confuses the right to think independantly and free speech with rational thinking. The point I make is not an authoritative one. I do not speak as a King looking down on servants. If that is what you think then that is still YOUR psychological issue. Furthermore, Cheyanne, you have no legit justifications for what you think. Either way you have psychological issues: either you think all humans speak from authority or you think your right to think differently is challenged; both are psychological in nature and not rational –as “rational” defined within psychology itself.
The topic of the forum here was NEVER “let me express myself no matter what nonsense I decide to come up with because I CAN!” Your ability to speak and write does not equal “all sentences are of equal value”. Cheyenne, you seem to think since all humans have a right to express themselves all expressions must be equal value. [This is almost in line with one who believes all humans have equal rights so every thing we do as humans must be equal.] To bad that most sane persons value true statements over false statements which busts a hole in your position. A sign of an over emotional person is that they confuse object A for another object. Sort of like a child that knows what the word cat refers to an animal and each animal seen must also be a cat as well. No one here questions your existence, your human rights, your freedom of speech or your freedom to think of what you wish. However, as a human being, and not a beast, your thoughts ought to be justifiable if you are to be taken seriously. A sense of humor is one thing that often plays on over exaggeration but soon the joke is over. You persist as to kill humor and then become annoying instead of humourous. A comedian who kills a joke is not well received. If you are not trying to be humorus, at least you can try to make better distinctions and stay on a topic without resorting to your right to hold an opinon and express yourself. If the topic were “Morality” you would still enter your opinion –just because. This is a bad thing to do: it shows you don’t pay attention, and it might show you could careless (“I don’t care” so it doesn’t matter attitude). If the topic were addition, you should not just throw in your two cents –about whatever you want — just because you can. Stick to the topic! I doubt you would say all things are subjective if the topic is Math. If anything you stated had absolute truth would prove there are things that are objective. You saying all is subjective means sometimes you are wrong and sometimes you are correct about all things. So if I asked, “Were your parents ever human beings?” you would not be able to say “they were always human” since that is not objective and nothing is objective. Thus, there were a time when you parents were not human beings. You know that is not correct, right? I could go on about your gender as well: “Were you ever a man?” At some point you had to be a man and then another point you must have transformed into something else such as a woman or a hermaphrodite because nothing is objectively true. Makes no sense and I am sure you are aware of this.

Honestly speaking your article is one of the most profound one I have ever read. I always had difficulty in differentiating between Subjective & Objective statements but after reading your article I have a clear cut knowledge to easily differentiate between them.

In a nut shell, you have proficiently justified your subjective article on objective grounds.

The following text is how my facebook friend tried to prove that everything is subjective. I’m not sure where he made a logical fallacy. Is he right? or is his argument valid? can any one give me a hand please?

! ……… On Some Maths ………….!

I was once discussing with some university students (on the area of ‘objectivism vs subjectivism’.

I told them, ‘everything is subjective (including this one), and this is the only objective thing’. I thought my idea was not clear (because of their silence), and took second chance to say, ‘the only objective thing is that everything is subjective’.

One of the smart students challenged me, ‘for example, there is some objectivity in natural sciences –as it depends on natural objects and scientific methods.’

‘First, natural science is not based on objectivity; it is rather based on hypotheses. Hypothesis is assumption. Assumptions are based on postulates. A postulate has nothing to do with objectivity. It has to do with some convenience in order to deal with some logical reasoning.’ I replied.

‘But it uses scientific method’, another student argued.

‘Scientific method is all about reasoning. Reasoning is logic. Logic is about the way we use to communicate via language. Language uses words. Words are meaningful sounds. Human beings assign some specific meanings to sounds to make words. So, words do not have their own real meanings. Therefore, ‘scientific method’ is just a way of arguing. What differs natural science from the social one is, it focuses on some seemingly ‘tangible’ things. Yet, the game is all same’. It was my response.

‘For example, mathematics is believed to objective. Accordingly 1+1= 2. Isn’t this objective?’ The first student argued and the others turned to me.

‘First, mathematics is not natural science. It is known as formal science, because it doesn’t deal with the natural phenomena. It is about language (mathematical language). Second, like words, numbers are also nonsense. They are rules of games, simply playthings, conventionally agreed for convenience.

‘1+1=2, this is true for the purpose of convenience only. Let me prove it from two aspects; one from the THING (physicalor material world).

1+1 is not two but one plus one, as it is. It is impossible to sum them up to one unit; as they are two different things, entities. We have to possibilities: either 1 (first one) and 1 (the second one) are one and same OR they are different.

Here comes the logic: if they are ONE and same. Then, there is no need to add (or make summation) them together, because they are already one. Then ‘they’ becomes ‘one’. One is one. It is one. So, 1+1=1.

But if they are different, they cannot be added, because they are different. In mathematics, we cannot add one sheep and one goat. By the same logic, we cannot add one sheep with another sheep, because it is ‘another’ as it is different in many aspects (in color, size, age, orientation etc.). Therefore, 1+1 = 1+1 (not 2).

That is NO TWO THINGS are identical in the world. Everything is unique to its own right, impossible to ADD except for the sake of an ASSUMPTION.

Secondly, from the NO-THNIG (metaphysical or spiritul world); all is ONE- the same radiant energy field. Therefore, 1+1 is ONE and only ONE because ALL is ONE.

Hence numbers (and words) are only useful, utilitarian yet without any objectivity.

Your post has already been addressed if you were to review the previous posts. In a nutshell you make no sense intellectually because you DO make absolute statements– those by the way are objective. You claim like many others who study psychology that all is relative. Have you no idea how many times this poor reasoning was used? It is like saying to your Boss or Supervisor at work “traffic made me late”. The child to his teacher: “My dog ate my homework.” At least think of something NEW for goodness sake. Here you are saying all is relative and all is subjective and you make these claims: “That is NO TWO THINGS are identical in the world. Everything is unique to its own right, impossible to ADD except for the sake of an ASSUMPTION.” You mean that [the quoted material from you] is not absolute and Objective?? Give me a case where it is false please. This shows your view of Logic as a legit and unique subject is not correct. Your view of deduction is so poor you can’t see you contradict yourself by taking a subjective and relative approach. Everyone and his Mother and Brother who argues “All is Subjective” commit fallacies — with no exceptions and no doubt. Please explain how your comments are subjective since all is subjective, right? Do you not see that if your comments are subjective then there will be instances where Your comments are WRONG? An absolute claim is forever true: for example, All trees are plants. There was a person not so log ago posted the same psychology stuff named Cheyanne. Scroll up and read those posts and read the responses. Your math example show you lack proper conceptual understanding as well. I want to make this point again as I did with others who use emotions to think: when you say all is subjective then your statement is absolute because you are making a universal claim! If all is subjective then there should be no case where you make a universal claim whatsoever, period. To say all is subjective means that truh values will change forever and never be predictable. That is, there will be days you mother will not be a woman; there will be days that you will be nonliving and likewise you will be living on other days. There will be days scientific research is worthy and there will be days scientific research is worthless. There will be days the sun will rise and there will be days the sun won’t rise — that day has not happened yet by the way. You would then have to admit all humans are not humans some of the time and furthermore that knowledge is possible for any living species because there are no absolutes and things keep changing. This reasoning is old and fallacious. This is an issue with Psychology which is propbably where this poor reasoning sample comes from (and it spread like wild fire). You would need to really learn logic properly which would take some time. You confuse Psychology with Philosophy which is so common it is like saying “If I had a nickel for each person who thought or heard the idea “all is subjective” like you, I would be a multi- millionaire — or perhaps a billionaire.”

I have made a few typos in my last post. I want to clarify that humans would not be able to know much of anything if all things like KNOWLEDGE was subjective. Education therefore would be a joke or just entertainment to keep one busy. Your reasoning was NOT valid nor was your reasoning sound. You mistakenly think all reasoning is LOGIC. This is not true at all. Where did you get that from in the first place? Again you confuse Psychology with Philosophy as if they are the same thing. There are MANY types of reasoning — not just one or two. All types of reasoning are NOT related to the academic subject of Logic at all. The academic subject of Logic actually has a curriculum like any other subject like Medicine, Law, Accounting, Biology,etc. You seem to think because you are human you are logical magically? Well why can’t I be a lawyer automatically without going to Law School? You have issues with your assumptions and thinking. Your reasoning is NOT logical, but emotional. You were correct about Science – that it is not objective. However, you couldn’t justify why to the other people. This means you need more time to think about the things you are attempting. Concepts might seem easy but if you do so seriously you will see they can be quite difficult. You r view of language probably needs to change because that is subjective. You take it as an absolute by defining words which you the subjective guy should not be doing at all. Objective truths are absolutes — there is no such thing as a real exception. An exception would prove a claim incorrect. People use the term as a shortcut to save time or they are lazy or too arrogant to take the time to explain things they way they should. Sciences require experiments. This is why they can never be absolute and objective. I do not need to put my dog under any experiment to find out if she is an animal. This is a neccessary truth that requires no science or experiment.

Since this argument is being made subject to a lengthy lapse of time (euphemism mind you, so don’t dispute the figurative language *cough* roy)) I would like to ask a simple question that applies to every individual deliberately at “dispute.” WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!! Excuse the obscenity I used, but sometimes the diabolical side of my dialect gets the best of me, when idiots like most of you are, confront me with fallacious narrative.IT is absurd how much of the shifting definitions inputted for “SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE” there are. from my subjective standpoint, this “objective” article is much more reliable than apparent subjectivity described in redundant paragraphs. The paragraphical explanation above is way more accurate than anyone on here.Not to mention, the probability that the article was developed by a collaborative group of specialists, knowing the correct data to present

the analogies presented on this chat, have no relevance or correlation to any subjective or objective thoughts. All that is valid here lays within my suggestions presently.In several subjective viewpoints, all of these documented collaborative propositions (paragraphs) are so funny to listen too, when you realize…..how illogical they are, more so there lack of valid data.

This recursive look into the subjective nature of objectivity was, as always, profoundly entertaining. But I think the whole “God” solution was pretty weak…

The video reasons that man’s knowledge is subjective and only God’s knowledge is objective, and man must look to God to establish objective truths., including the objective truth of mans own reality.
As any attempt to find true objectivity within the human experience just leads to an infinite recursive loop of subjective thinking.

I agree with the problem, but not the solution

If man’s knowledge is subjective, then man’s knowledge of God is subjective.

Since there is no evidence that God exist apart from man’s subjective knowledge.. all arguments to the contrary, also being subjective, then man can only experience God as subjective.and any knowledge of God must also be subjective.

Thus, the view of God as the source of ultimate objective truth..is also subjective. And if ultimate objective truth is subjective.. then subjectivity becomes the ultimate objective truth.

( If it is a fact that there is no ultimate objective truth apart from subjective thought.. then the fact that there is no ultimate objective truth apart from subjective thought becomes an ultimate objective truth within a subjective thought) this is the nature of recursive loops.. they keep swallowing themselves to become the thing that swallowed the thing that swallowed the thing…….

If we require objectivity to establish a subjective reality… but our concept of that objective, is defined within that subjective reality. ..then there is no real foundation for order at all except what we have created subjectively.

Then what? Are we sailing a sea of chaos in a ship we have constructed from a subjective belief that ships exist.
What happens when the 100th monkey gets it.

I normally use the word ‘Fair’ to illustrate the concept of ‘Subjective’ as in: Ask any two people getting divorced or two business partners fighting for control or dividing a business. Each has there own personal definition of what is ‘Fair’ and most of the time they are miles apart!

I copied the 3 paragraphs: Definition of Objective and Subjective /
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective / Examples of Objective and Subjective

To use as great, concise statements to clarify and enable someone to easily understand the difference between ‘Objective’ versus ‘Subjective’

I did attribute the 3 paragraphs to this webpage using the full URL of this webpage as an active link in my membership site.

I will probably use them as well on my blog, with an active link (Direct link in body of post without any ‘nofollow’ crap) in a blog post in a few days.

If you used the original author’s definitions above in the article, then you ill not look so bright to people who actually know the difference! Using the given definitions allow too many exceptions to the rule for the definitions to be taken seriously by peole who actually can make distinctions. You might want to think about what you associate with your name.

Roy, When you say to Scott “You might want to think about what you associate with your name.”

I’ll gladly point out the obvious by adding what Michael so eloquently said:
” WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!”

You see, there is nothing that is objective in a name to oneself. Did Michael give him or herself their name? No, it was made up by whomever gave them their name. Which is the same on down the line to whatever name made up & given to those that made up & gave him or her the name Michael. All of us have been subjected to someone else placing a label upon them no differently than how a rock is labeled a rock by someone that also didn’t even name themselves their own name anymore than that rock did. Being defined by someone else & NOT believing in that definition is how you come to understand the truth. Which is; that, that wishes to be seen as objective is merely making it all up & subjecting you to it’s made up subjective labels & definitions. So I repeat again… “WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!”

An objective view of reality is reality as it is without the bias of any opinions or limited viewpoints. According to Nietzsche no one can ever give a truly objective perspective because everyone has some sort of bias belief or assumption. We are not omnipotent beings and can therefore never know reality objectively.

‘If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective’
Interesting analysis,
I can argue with questions:
If everyone agrees what a particular piece of art means does that mean those people are still subjective, have created an objective truth collectively to satisfy their understanding or have just understood collectively what the artist intended for out of the meaning of the artwork.

I see another psycho lover in the mist (namely, you)! Why did you even bother to post this psycho rant:
” . . . WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!! Excuse the obscenity I used, but sometimes the diabolical side of my dialect gets the best of me, when idiots like most of you are, confront me with fallacious narrative.IT is absurd how much of the shifting definitions inputted for “SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE” there are. from my subjective standpoint, this “objective” article is much more reliable than apparent subjectivity described in redundant paragraphs.”

This is what happens when you read too much psychology: you lack critical thinking skills. The typical “So what ?” belief (but YOU chose the obscene way to put it) when you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion. You agreeing with the original post in the article shows you lack the proper skills to think independantly and make proper distinctions. You did not address one point which you disagreed with: that would be the rational thing to do.

The author of the article said this:”Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.” And then goes on to give silly examples:”Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.”

If anything the author said were OBJECTIVE then finding an exception to anything said would be impossible. I can name exceptions to each: How does one look up MORAL objectivity using science or math? To say that all objectivity comes from science and math is absurd alone: for Science is only probable with its results; this process is INDUCTIVE reasoning which is WHY experiments or TESTS are required in the first place. I do not need a single experiment (or test) to prove your mother, Michael, is (or was) a human being. See how you lack thinking skills? On the other hand, Math alone shares some common things with Logic but they are NOT EQIVALENT: there are times where math just does its own thing. Math can’t deal with semantic issues such as contraposing a proposition like “No s are non-p” which is debatable and NOT certain; furthermore there are mathematical equations that yield a WRONG type of answer named “extraneous roots” which occurs with some quadratic equations: extraneous roots are NOT the solution to the original quadratic eqaution and STILL are possible. If math were CERTAIN having a non solution as a possibility would NEVER HAPPEN. You would not have two possibilities if there is a CERTAIN answer or solution. So at times Math is certain and some times it is not certain.
About me bringing up morals as an exception to the author’s definition, You (can do a psycho rant and likely will) say “Morals don’t exist” but then where is your proof or justification? You must understand anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof. Psycho lovers have the tendcy to make the “other guy” ALWAYS have the burden of proof while you sit back as royalty. No! You make a claim, then YOU BACK IT UP! Had I said there is a God, I must offer a reason. Had I said there is no God, I must offer a reason. Either way my claim requires justification. You claim Morality does not exist, prove it. (I did not make the claim they did, but gave an exception to the rule given).

My main point of my first post is to dismiss the myth that the author claims: “scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data” is FALSE.

This foolishness will have people thinking Science is objective; that science is like a GOD and perfect, which it is by definition NOT perfect or certain. Science is not certain and thus can’t be objective wholly; there can be certain claims made within science such as H2O is Water based on definition. If experiment is needed it is NOT Deductive. Deduction is CERTAIN, if done correctly. Know the difference.

I have been reading your post, first off calm down there is no need to prove you are angry. We are all different with different perceptions of what is true or not. Whether science is not completely objective we can all agree that there are certain facts like H2O exists, that pretty much all of us have bones, that their is gravity on earth, that we need fire to be warm well for most of us. Anyway I have a philosophy which I would like to share which some might not agree with but I respect that. I do not start calling people fools just because I do not think they are as smart or as dumb as me or even agree with me. As long as there is respect that is all I need. I believe quite firmly: That truth (Objectives) always exists whether we know it all, partially or not at all and that is to with the basic understanding of a situation and or anything that exists. Much of world’s problems that have and probably will continue is fundamentally caused by a non mutual understanding and respect of differences physically and communicatively.

You’re wrong here. With an assumption that “we can all agree that there are certain facts”. What one person or many people call something is irrelevant. Whether its H2O, bones, gravity or what makes a good or bad guy, it’s all subjective. Those that believe a particular word describes whatever they claim they’re describing can believe that. But there are those that do not believe what you claim. They do not care what you have to say & they have every right to call whatever you call one thing, something else & be just as right as you ever will be. 😉 And I doubt Roy was angry. He or she was simply stating what they know, just like you & anyone else.

@cheyenne when you say everything is subjective that is still your view meaning your subjective which means for some reason you do not believe that anything can be objective. To be Objective you have to take human emotion, subjective opinion, and human out of it. To first understand the difference of subjectivity and objectivity we must first define them collectively no matter what background anyone has. It seems what you have said only defends your subjective opinion about everything being subjective. And then denying that H2O exists that moleculess, energy exist, to deny that just denies the scientific fact of why anything is real, why we are abloe to communicate, why we have brains, why we can think, feel or not feel.Whether we believe it or not there is such thing as objective and that is energy which makes us, binds us, keeps us, and takes us.

You’re not looking deep enough. You’re using your own opinion when you say

“To be Objective you have to take human emotion, subjective opinion, and human out of it. To first understand the difference of subjectivity and objectivity we must first define them collectively no matter what background anyone has.”

Everything you have said here is subjective & your opinion. Everything I have said here is subjective & my opinion. Everything anyone has said here is subjective & their opinion. Gathering other ‘people’ to believe in the same or a similar opinion, still leaves what is said; subjective.

“And then denying that H2O exists that moleculess, energy exist, to deny that just denies the scientific fact of why anything is real, why we are abloe to communicate, why we have brains, why we can think, feel or not feel.Whether we believe it or not there is such thing as objective and that is energy which makes us, binds us, keeps us, and takes us.”

Again what you say above is your opinion & something you were taught to believe, nothing more.

Define opinion, define fact. If we cannot even define these terms and collectively understand each other and agree on what is objective then its easy and understandable to be behind our computers telling people such as myself that anything I have said as an example is subjective. If we want to define anything objectively it is easier when people meet face to face in groups but obviously that might not happen. Being objective on internet is difficult but even live recording may not be trusted. I have realized something here because of the development of manipulation through technology the development of trust between each other can affect us socially even in simple discussion and more obvious o YouTube. So trying to define objectivity with no real human interaction is almost impossible which is why probably my reply is still as an opinion not fact. The thing is cheyenne you did not really say why what I said is still my opinion because and to breathe is a fact human living so are you telling its still my opinion to believe that I am alive because i am able to breathe, I mean why on earth would I believe I was not breathing because how would I be able to write to you. I think I just proved a fact without subjective over internet meaning that objective is something that applies to all living organisms and that subjectivity is a belief, opinion, perception of a fact not living a fact.

What you believe & what you call breathing, is through subjective teaching. There is no objectivity in what you want. When an early ancestor decided they ‘wanted’ to communicate with others for whatever reason, it still remained a personal ‘objective’ to do so. It never carried over to me & I personally don’t care what you or anyone else wants to believe, or wants me to believe for that matter. If you want to believe that there is objectivity or subjectivity or a mixture of both, then that is up to you. Go for it.

When I use these terms I would usually say that a subjective opinion is a personal opinion; one that may well vary a great deal between individuals. An objective opinion is one that is derived using some sort of accepted or standard methods such as the scientific method. An objective opinion can be wrong but only because the standard method has been applied incorrectly or not comprehensively enough.

PS I am an academic who has published in some of the worlds foremost scientific journals so if you dont like my definition you can KMA.

there is no such a thing as an “objective opinion.” If a claim is “objective”, then that claim ought to be true all the time. There are no take backs, there are no exceptions to the rule, etc. If I claim water is always H2O then my claim is either true or false. In the case my claim is false it surely is not objective in the normal sense; in an awkward sense it is objectively FALSE. Normally the term objective refers to things that are true forever. The proper term is “Fact”. A fact is not subjective nor opinion. A fact does not need your approval or everyone’s approval. Yes there will be some psycho to say the opposite on any claim, but that does not change the issue or the value of a claim. A psycho lover will spew:”if I disagree then its wrong.” No! Your approval that H2O is water is not required. Your approval that a dog is an animal is not required and etc. Facts do not depend . . . . FACTS ARE! they exist with or without anyone’s approval. There is life on Jupiter is either true or false. By not having the tools to measure the claim does not impose or remove the truth value of the claim. Perhaps when our technology is good enough we will have the tools to become aware which value the claim holds. In other word the term objective should be used to express a factual claim that is always true. If the claim is sometimes true and sometimes false it is contingent and not objective. Personal beliefs should not be included in a discussion of the differences of subjective and objective. As you can see many people under the guidance of psychology — that everything is opinion to these people — clearly bring up their person dislikes or likes about the topic. They do have poor conceptual skills which is part of the reason they answer out of the blue. Agreement is not part of truth values: true or false. Awareness is not part of truth values: true or false. Neither agreement nor awareness of a fact changes the result of a solid proposition. if the proposition is objective it must be factual. the fact there is no awareness or so called evidence does not make the claim false or anything for that matter. Truth value is an entirely independent process from interpretation. Truth value must be consistent or there is likely an error committed somewhere. If I am super specific objective claims are hard to refute: as of Sunday June 30, 2013 at 6:45 eastern standard time, the sun is the third planet from the sun.

@john It is an interesting discussion so you have your view and I have mine but the more someone tries to step back and comment on the entire discussion by saying it is dumb and wasting everyones’s time is purely subjective and makes the point then why are you commenting on this discussion if you believe that. One of the amazing things about the internet is that we talk by messages online with people around the world to whom we might never meet. The discussion of objectivity and subjectivity needs to be talked about because what’s the point in discussing anything we are sharing our knowledge about the matter to find a conclusion. We are all people who need to communicate in some way otherwise we feel very lonely the question is the communication subject relevant and contributes ultimately to discussion that plenty of people want to talk about. At least we are not at everyone’s throats. I may of took your comment too seriously but why comment on something you know is effectively not helping.

It seems Cheyenne have invited more psychos to the party and John is one of them. Isn’t it great that psychos love to use their all time favorite lines that solves all problems? Here are the most common replies from psycho lovers no matter what the topic and they want to be jerks: “So What!”, “Who cares?”, “What is your point (or what is the point)?” “Everything is opinion and subjective”, or the repetitive “What do you mean? I don’t get it”, or the infinite childhood question “WHY? WHY Why?”, etc. When will they ever address the topic? Clearly those lines are nonstarters: they are designed to KILL all rational or intelligent discussion. It is like you over the top psycho loving people don’t want humans to even have a language. I suppose you think “what do we need language for?” Normal humans do not behave in this way. So I would be forced to put others in a DIFFERENT category. There is a difference between those who go to school on a regular school bus and those who have that special little yellow bus drive the kids to school. I am not talking about IQ or intelligence here either. So no psycho comments about intelligence, IQ or smarts, etc.
I have stated I have no issues with science and those academic in science unless they spew the error that science is an exact or always has certainty. No science is exact by definition and that was already addressed earlier in this thread. Science can relay “SOME” facts but surely it is not fool proof or perfect. Not even math is perfect which I also addressed and no one commented on above in this thread. I am not angry at people who do not know they have been duped. I am angry at people who have spitefull intent which I promptly named “psycho lovers” because Psychology is a field the promotes subjectivism over objectivity. It surely is contagious because without logical training most people are exposed to the psychology way to think. even I was infected until I learn how to think properly — that was thanks to my logic professors and other philosophy professors back in college. They showed me the light how to reason and do it correctly. Without such training your thoughts are 8 out of 10 chances going to be over emotional. People confuse philosophy with Sophistry. The Sophist is the guy who is a con man to say it nicely. he is a BS artist and speaks vaguely. So vague that he could mean almost anything. He will purposely do this because he will wait for your response and choose then a different way and say you were wrong. Notice he does not make the first move or choice. He politely lets you have first move. Had he made the first move he would not be able to refute you if you guess correctly. Humans need to comprehend that if you CAN be specific you need to be specific! that means no asking where were you last Friday kind of stuff. that is what you see on those tv cop shows. that is BS. Specific means where were you last Friday at 11:30 p.m on such and such date? Now notice I throw in the date so there is no chance of which Friday? being asked. Psychology thinks it cool to define deduction as going from the general to the specific. This answer is not totally wrong but surely its not totally correct. Hence you get millions of people asking vague questions and EXPECT a specific answer. specific questions deserve specific answers; vague questions rightly deserve a vauge response in return. Because you are not good enough to catch some one in a lie is YOUR problem. “well if I just ask the question I wish directly the person can lie” Well yes they can and you can’t stop that from happening. Trying to be slick or out smart someone who knows how to hussle other people will make a very long night, especially if they are BETTER at it than you are. You can fool some but not all. You will run into the guy who upsets you because you are asking stupid and vague questions and he calls you on it by asking for more information. So called math word problems use this trickery in exact detail: there is always a word or phrase that could mean more than one thing; the person who formulates the question banks on you guessing the wrong thing and hence you will get the answer wrong. had the math professor given you the correct formula to solve the word problem instead of the words, would you misinterpret it? chances are NO most would not. The key to effective communication is clear: be specific and NOT VAGUE where possible so you reduce the chance of another person misinterpreting the message. Sophist, con men and many who study psychology do speak ambiguously on purpose to play with people’s mind at another person’s expense; that other person might not think you r playful jest with their mind as “cute”. It is not COOL to impose your humor on others without consent first.

Its obvious here the discussion feels like we are against each other just because we disagree with how we conclude with our definitions of objective and subjective even though that it may seem obvious. Despite this having a go at each other there obviously has been something we can all agree on that being subjectiveis the attitude of how things are percieved or believed as well as the content of the perceptionwhat these terms mean.
Roy even though I agree with what you say sometimes communicating our own perception of some people “Psycos” is pointless because it is not going to stop. To be objective not only do you have to take human perceptionout of the picture we also have take emotions and technology does which what Roy partly saying. The thing is by taking out all emotion to find out what is fact takes away our nature of being human. Being human is being a part of the energy system, so if an individual beliefs what they are is objectively true even with no emotion it can still be considered subjective (which is obvious in this discussion, if we can even call it a discussion now.)In this dicussion we have proven the extreme of subjectivity and no much about objective because of the nature of human behaviour. We humans find it hard not only defining objectivity but also just trying to differentiate it between how we feel or belief about the topic. If we cannot hold this so called discussion online what hope do have if we talked about this face to face.

Roy, I feel for you.. It’s like trying to teach a dog how to whistle
Maybe possible but utter waste of time

Roy, anum, Greg, Michael, ‘x’
You guys understand, you get it..

Cheyenne, for real? Are you high? lol I see where you are coming from but also understand that you are in the end, absurd and just not ‘right’ as your arguments are in essence subjective and can never be right, they lack objectivity.
Stanton, and the rest of you on the same page as Cheyenne
I don’t know if you like her name or just think its honorable to defend a woman’s bias or whatever it is.. You just don’t get it. If your minds are truly incapable of understanding what Roy, this article, and frankly THE ENTIRE WORLD DEFINE AS OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE
then if there is a god
May he help you
Because if these precious facets of reality overwhelm your mental prowess
Then you have little place in such an uncontroversial matter.

I believe we all are subjective in our perception and opinions of reality
Duh
That is the definition of subjectivity
Reality is objective
If humans never existed
And there were no thoughts about the universe
What exists in the universe
Is objective
And if this escapes you
Then you need some help lol

This is not an attack on anyone

You all have a right to you opinions and subjectivity

But regardless of your SUBJECTIVE

what exists in truth is above your opinions, regardless of what u call it
It is what it is and only what it is, when u ass your thought
You taint objective truth with subjective opinion.

“I personally don’t care what you or anyone else wants to believe, or wants me to believe for that matter.”

So why are you writing what you are writing? One of the biggest problems on this earth is not being able to share and be open about other perceptions. You say you do not care about what others believe yet you have the freedom like me to say what we want online no matter our opinion of believe in fact. What is the point of this discussion? Well most us know, (I feel its gone over a line) but I do not know you so I do not say things like “I personally do not care what anyone else wants to believe” (that is something you can keep to yourself, its another expressing it unless you don’t care how people react from what you say). The biggest problem in this world is misunderstanding each other and being emotional and taking action about it. So that is why we should take care what we say online otherwise we just appear to look like something we did not expect.

From my understanding subjective is an emotional response usually only seeing something in one perspective which may be true. Objective is a non emotional response shared between perspectives and agreed together as true facts and the more people there are who believe it is why it becomes true facts.

Now sometimes these facts can be wrong or one or many people may disagree which is why reviewing the objectives helps us together understand the objectives better collectively and improve our understanding of reality. However an objective that is a lie is the reason why we doubt that there is an objective. The example below will help: (I am not trying to sound condescending)

Subjective: I see a glass of water on the table and it is half empty.
Subjective: I see a glass of water on the table and it is half full.
Subjective: I do not see a glass of water I do not know what your talking about.
Subjective: I see a glass on the table but there is no water.
Subjective: I see a table but no glass.
Subjective: Someone told me there is a glass of water on table but I do not know what to believe.
Subjective: I see a glass of water on small table but someone drank it.
Subjective: I see glass on a table with 3 people on a sofa from outside the room.
Subjective: It was a small room and we all we trying to confirm the glass of water is real.
Subjective: I was in the room but I could not understand what all this talking was about.

Looking at all these phrases the likely objectives are because we taking any personal view out of the objects:
Glass
Water
Table
Room

The only way to find out facts is cutting out any emotional responses. The most important factor is that if only one person is lying why should that dismiss everything else been unless everyone else is lying which is why how each person who tells there story is important in figuring out if there is a conspiracy. If it is all scripted as in everyone says everything with the same lines with no individual interpretation then its likely to be a conspiracy.
The difference between subjective and objective is only difficult to answer when it these words cannot be defined and no example is given which really if we all did we would see a pattern in how we found out an objective. There is another problem in which lies in defining the difference and that is simply the ability to trust which there is not much of today because of the lies that exist.

I have a question: If we can all agree the sun exists and that is a fact of life where is the subjectivity in that?

I am only assuming pretty much everyone in the world will understand, believe and or see or feel the sun existing which is the only subjective thing there. Should one person who has never seen, understand, believe and or feel the sun prevent pretty much the entire population’s understanding of the sun existing? I am just trying to prove those who do not know that we cannot just rely on one source to believe or understand a fact. We have to see it, share, feel it, even believe it with a variety of sources that provides a commonality.

It has been a long time since I have seen updates here. I am kind of glad there are people still viewing the thread and keeping the concept alive.
Objective statements as defined in philosophy are statements that hold exactly one truth value. In other words, there should be no possibility for the statement to hold alternating truth values as in different time frames or different days of the week. Objective statements need to hold a truth value 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. Statements that are sometimes true are called contingent — not objective. So the weather on some days is cold and on other days it is not cold. The statement “the air is always cold in NYC” is contingent; for there are days the air is hot and I need air conditioning. Objective statements do not rely on “People”. Many science lovers go over the top with their desire of verification: “How will I know if God exist or pink little fairies if I cannot detect them? After all, you can just say anything then!”
Well, yes, people can say anything at least where there is freedom of expression but that does not mean I or anyone else has to believe what is said. So if I say God exists, you are not forced into belief whether I hold absolute evidence or I hold no evidence at all. Psychologists have discovered through tests and have tested historically that human beings do NOT have to hold rational beliefs! Do you recall there were people at one time thought the Earth was the center of the Universe? There were people who believed the Earth was flat and you will fall off the edge; there are people who STILL believe African Americans are still inferior people as part of the human race; there are people who believe in alien abductions, etc. There is no limit to what people can believe –even in the case of hard evidence, some people will ignore it and do their own thing still. Do not confuse agreement with existence. Do not confuse your awareness with truth. If I say there is life on the Sun, I might not be able to verify it but still the statement “there is life on the Sun” is either true or false. The same goes with “there is a God” and so on. Because you don’t know the value at the moment is not speaker or writer’s problem. In time we might be possible to find out the truth through sense verification. So stating you can’t determine which truth value a statement holds is side stepping the issue. Well if that is the case social conversations will sure be shorter huh? Yes, until another topic of which you know more information comes up. [Perhaps, this is what Socrates meant when he claimed he knew nothing? hmmmm, methinks that he meant “I know of no subject to hold a conversation with others to be worth something but I do know what deceptive thinking and faulty thinking are!”]
Objective statements ideally should be always true statements –24 hours per day and 7 days per week. If there is a single false instance the statement is proven false. So if I say “all women have red hair” the claim is proven false as soon as I see a woman with out hair, a woman with natural blonde hair is seen, a woman with brown hair, or a woman with black hair, etc. With the 24/7 proviso about objective statements that makes them universal. By universal I mean within the galaxy we live in right now. I am not sure what holds in other galaxies but deductive laws hold solidly here. What is that you say: “Well then its really not universal is it?” Well if I was certain about what holds true in our galaxy holds throughout the entire universe I would actually make the claim as such. I really would love to do so, but I might be stepping out of bounds here so I won’t say such a thing. This move stops the haters from grabbing on something to find fault with me.

So to close, objective statements are always true ideally, and they are without false instances. This is where science lovers go wrong: they see no evidence and STILL make a conclusion that might be true or false but they can’t determine the truth value of either statement; and as such is the case they blindly pick one they like.
A deductive lad like myself requires proof or evidence on two platforms: the one of existence (or positive cases) AND the one of non-existence (or false instances). So I am justified in believing all dogs are mammals because I can gather proof of positive cases that when tested dogs qualify as mammals because they can produce milk to their young. At the same time, there are no false cases no matter how hard I seek. I cannot find a false case. This is also known as proof by cases. What the science lovers who like debating do is similar but there is a switch: they start with no evidence in existence and there are no positive cases in view; they now think that they are entitled to conclude if there is no evidence of existence then it does not exist. They are wrong!!
“Isn’t that the same thing you just did? What is the difference?”
I can find positive cases which is clearly easier than finding false instances. To say there is no existing unicorn or pink fairies is to exhaust every physical possibility in the world to reach certainty. That is where my claim and method is different than the science lover who loves debating. I can find positive cases to prove existence which only requires ONE instance. Unlike the other position “if I have no evidence I am justified in non-belief and will not believe”. In that case in order to reach certainty you must exhaust each possibility and get a false truth value to make an objective claim such as there is no God, there are no pink fairies, there is no flying spaghetti monster, there is no big foot in the woods, there is no Lochness monster, etc. I do not knock legit science researchers. When the reasoning is correct what can I say? However, if the reasoning is bad, I can point out where or how the reasoning went wrong. In philosophy there are no bullies or ranks. Each person is independant. In history no philosophers have been adored by a culture or loved by an entire society. On the contrary, most philosophers were JUST BASIC HUMANS. History shows these type of humans could be dealt with when they said something to upset a majority of the people around them: they were to be killed, physically beaten, or outcasted from social life. No clout. No authority to stand on in the name of philosophy. Till this day it is still the same –not much respected as other fields.
Deductive logic is Objective. It has no biases, is not based on emotion, and truth preserving. That is if the premises are in fact true and literally meaningful there is no way to refuse the conclusion– well that is if you are rational. Irrational people don’t count in this case.

Each language was made up by humans. Words are made up by humans. The definitions are made up by humans. Each language has originated by a human that no less made it up. From the first word to the second and every word thereafter. Every word and each of the definitions for those words was placed by the opinion of the person or group of people that wanted that specific word to be described by whatever definition they have subjectively chosen for it to mean. Humans are self serving creatures. We describe what we like and don’t like with the desire that it be perceived as ‘objective’ by all. We are all taught starting at very young ages what words belong where and are meant to describe whatever ‘action’ or ‘thing’ it is that our teachers want us to believe.

In my own understanding, “objective” means a universal fact which CANNOT be change and will always remain true, regardless of what awareness, opinion or perspective any of us might have of it.

“Subjective”, on the other hand, means an opinion, interpretation, or perception of a thing, depending on each and everyone’s understanding.

To illustrate my point, an example would be the color red. To be objective, you just have to say that the color red exist. A blind man may not see it but the fact remains it exist. But if I said or rather claimed, that red is not pleasing to the eye or that it’s an irritating color, then that would be subjective.

And to those who would say ‘red’ only exist because of man’s imagination, then I would say you’re wrong. red, regardless of it’s labels, exists. That’s a FACT. Even if you call it blue, or green, or refuse to give it any name, it still exists. What about animals? You agree they have life right? And we know some of them predates us. Do you think, because they have no language, or communication, or even any form of putting labels to what we now call “colors”, that these colors did not exist then? Of course they did! Even before humanity learned how to speak, or before God created us, depending on what you might believe, there are things that exists, outside of our perception, awareness and understanding. Those are just FACTS.

It’s just that us humans, being intelligent beings, have started putting labels on everything. So I think it’s more accurate to say that all humans are subjective, since when we start thinking about something, then it becomes our perception and understanding of that something. And when we collect our thoughts and put it into words, it becomes our opinions and interpretations of that something.

It also proves that leeda’s post about the whole “God” solution being weak could be false. Since God’s, or an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being’s understanding of things would be completely objective, His nature being as it is. And to prove His existence would be almost impossible, since our view and understanding of everything are limited.

Are you reading this, looking at my written text, can you respond to my text? Simple by asking questions and observing a response whether it is right wrong from whatever angle you look at it there is a commonality here that represents an objective. That I have the ability to think, type, express my feelings, react to other written words and importantly and fundamentally do what I want even if I feel I can. Now I accept that many people may only be able to do one of these things.Which means there is always at least one commonality through a visual or practical technique which any other person who may have limitations have aswell. Commonality seems to be one of the best ways to understand a fact unfortunately when one or a group knows they can take advantage and replace that commonality with a fabrication/false statement. One of the main reasons we have difficulty today to see and even agree a difference between subjective and objective is due to the technique of expressing truth convincingly alone or with others which can also be manipulated therefore a lie. What I mean by this is that the way to communicate truth is the same way we convincing tell a lie. By this statement this is why we can conclude that everything is subjective. Do you think that even if humans and only humans do not exist that earth or even the universe exists? Why do we need humans to prove that there anything to exist? The answer to these questions will prove that we as humans are just as important as any other life organism and that a major issue for us humans is the ability to create physical things from our thoughts that may affect other people and even the environment in a non natural way. Labels were mentioned previously which have been told are subjective, individual perceptions, understandings. I generally agree with this and also that objectivity exists regardless of human subjectivity which is perception, understanding. From this we can see a major difference which is simply that subjectivity changes all the time and that objectivity hardly ever changes if in fact never changes. Now depending whether objectivity is written by one subjective account what I have been trying to say is simply investigating all different subjective accounts on an event, person, object, etc. needs to have at least one consistent theme that becomes an objective. If whatever is written is a lie by everyone we have ask why would they would be lying and is there a consistency in the reason why they are lying by this very question different sources can only be reliable as possible scientific fact if there are other similarity that either exist now or have existed. I personally think its ridiculous to believe everything is a lie when simply we do know everything. Why do we need to know everything if we want that?

Jonathan & EJ Rose; The ability to acknowledge something, will not make it objective. Whether its the name of a color (red) or the name You were given. Rocks and dogs were given names too you know. And because you and the dog have the ability to acknowledge &/or respond to what someone else has made up and called you (your name), unlike a rock or the color red can, does that make what was *made up*, objective? If it does, well then you see my point exactly. What someone has made up, is objective to so many. They are easily led astray & in the direction of whoever is teaching them. Clifford, sit! Ruff ruff….

Excellent.
I’m a psychology student and I found this site to be really helpful in knowing the relation between objectivity and subjectivity!
But, there’s still a confusion. If a person did a scientific research, is it objective or subjective to him!? Yes, he has made a conclusion but it is unbiased na.
>.< someone pls explain.

If the scientific research is well referenced from different sources that have a common ground in its facts then there will usually be objective facts. Even further to confirm there are objective facts through the scientific research would depend if the content has been scientifically proved in the sources from different sources that it has actually happened. Therefore these facts that have been proved to which becomes a very reliable source. The subjectivity is the theory the scientist is trying to prove from the research without using references or just using one reference before it might be proven true or not. If the science research is unbiased because its a critical review rather than simply making a theory then it is not subjective. However if the theory has a mission-driven purpose its very likely to be subjective unless proved factually from many other sources after the theory is confirmed and completed.

No science can be objective! Objective does not just mean unbiased: that happens to be an aspect along with objectivity. Objectivity relies on absolutes (aka certainty). If some form of knowledge is absolute, then it will automatically have no biases. The reason for this is because the facts for any given topic will lead to the answer; a similar approach is found in mathematics. That boils down to saying that the answer will and ought to speak for itself and no human is involved with the actual answer. So objective facts –not scientific fact(there is no such thing)– are independent and exist with or without humans. Another way to put it is this: objectivity deals with 100% certainty! Science deals with the rest. Science can never be certain because of the NEED for experiment. There is no experiment needed to say your brother or sister is your sibling. That is built into the language. Some call this semantics and word play but the proof of what the words express is that it is certain. What if the definition changes as some words clearly have in the past? Well then you have to be specific: at what point in time are you defining the word and so on. The answer to confusion is to go more specific and more specific and more specific. Go until it is impossible to go further with details (such as the exact minute of the hour with seconds included). Objectivity closes windows of opportunity for some trouble maker to keep acting the fool by trying to make things difficult on purpose. I clearly see this is taught in psychology courses: create open windows and don’t close them. In this way you always have something to say. Deductive logic DOES NOT do this. Deductive logic closes windows of opportunity for some smart aleck to counter by including specific details!

Psycho majors and wannabe psychos hate diving into details because then their mental nonsense will not work. They often bring up things from out of the blue and say they are on topic still. Look above and read some posts! Con artists need open windows, period. This does not mean all legit psychology majors are con artist –but if you leave the window always open then it is awfully hard to distinguish the con man from a legit human being because both appear to do the same thing. “If two things are not the same make a distinction.” [That is a paraphrase actually.]
Humans need to be as specific as the information they have. Many people just don’t want to just because . . . they can say “No, I don’t want to . . . or “I do what I want to do and say what I want to say”. Those are the ones you need to watch out for. Some people are caught up on titles or rank, age groups, etc. They seem to purposely not want to simplify things. Con artist in one way or another: in many cases people purposely withhold data to prevent YOU from making greater progress. This seems to be what the psycho majors above seem to keep bringing up. The topic is objectivity and psycho majors skip to what people actually think. Jonathan and Eversion are clear examples of this. Neither has addressed any refutation I posted prior to their rants. I have already addressed the things they brought u and they still don’t get it. Word play is not the point of the topic of Objectivity versus Subjectivity. Objectivity is certain: this often includes semantics and definitions –not the dictionary! Subjectivity is NOT certain. Subjectivity often goes hand in hand with PRACTICAL which fits very well with SCIENCE. You will find many humans with the belief that if something is not practical then that something isn’t worth much. Science lovers to the core. Hence those type of people would do away with all humanities subjects in academia like Philosophy, glow in the dark pottery courses, under water basket weaving, American Literature, Hip Hop Dancing, etc.

@ Roy,
How about just saying what you think on the subject matter without calling me a psycho. I said what I think and I believe I expressed my opinion whether I’m right or wrong. I don’t feel I have to resort to being rude just because we have difference of opinion. What’s funny is that what you said at the beginning of your comment I agree with and what I believe I have expressed. Do you see what’s happening here? This has become a subjective argument. Again quite clearly one of the biggest problems on this earth is that subjectively we misunderstand each other and can resort to being rude or violent. Again we low more about subjectivity than we do objectivity because that’s our human nature. Roy you talk we’ll go general but there is no need to call me or anyone else a psycho as that is not progressive or even necessary to the discussion. Peace to all.

I’m going to agree with you as far as Roy’s way of dealing with this issue. It appears that people don’t see their own subjectivity when they express things. Which can taint their position on objectivity.

While I am someone who believes heavily in objectivity. I defend psychology as a subject because it balances the overtly objective issues of sciences that don’t properly factor the subjective aspect of our world. Unfortunately, objectivity has equally ruined a lot of things in our society as subjectivity. However, I’ve found that much of psychology is quite objective. But Psychology needs subjectivity.

This reminds of the episode of Fraiser where Daphne takes Fraiser’s words regarding psychics and argues Psychology to be just like psychics in its ”Subjective Evidence and Lucky guesses.” That line peeves me to no end considering that, while she makes a point about psychology having subjective evidence at times, it’s not rooted in lucky guesses. There’s a method to the conclusions that have been made. And truthfully, objective sciences have made guesses, but they weren’t lucky. There was skill, and they stumbled onto discoveries. So, to compare psychology to psychic was disrespectful to the objective research that does go into psychology. I would sooner trust a psychologist than a psychic, most of whom I believe are the true con artists. I’ve noticed Martin Crane holds a similar attitude, of course in his agreement with Daphne but in other comments about psychology, he’s made. He tends to favour simplistic ways of thinking and argues psychology thinking too much into things. This is likely why he’s not accurate a lot of times in his logic. He’s superficial in his understanding of things a lot of times. I would say it was because of the generation from which he came, but even people in his time understood that thinking more in-depth was necessary and beneficial. It’s not about over thinking but recognising that there is more to simple things. However, deep thinking isn’t for everyone. Chances are Martin is not a deep thinker, so, to him, anything below the surface is thinking too much into things. In psychology I’ve found that people acknowledge some things are simple and nothing more. Other times they acknowledge, that while simple, there could be in-depth views regarding the topic. That’s is where subjectivity is a benefit. It’s a matter of looking at a number of perspectives and sides. Not settling on one, even if objectivity dictates something. For me, there is a joy to thinking of deep alternatives to simple things. Even though I know what objectivity says. Analysis is my natural way of thinking and I love doing it. So, I find Martin’s way of thinking to be overly subjective and simplistic, lacking the objectivity that you get from psychology. However, I won’t deny that at times Martin and Daphne are right in some of their views. So, subjective thinking has its merits. This is my subjective view of the characters. But I hold a level defence for psychology since I see it as a science that has done more good than bad, and challenges people to go beyond superficial thinking. I would love to see more objectivity introduced to Psychology, but not extensively. We need Psychology to continue to offer the necessary balance to the general field of science.

Where I also draw the line is the argument that psychology, in general, argues ”All is relative or subjective”. This is a subjective view and flawed. Calling people psycho for holding a flawed view, subjective. Claiming to Psych many majors to be con artists, subjective. Especially since there are a lot of those who major in objective based sciences and screw things up due to flawed objective thinking, but argue it to be truth anyway. I wouldn’t call them con artists. I see it as the nature of science. This is what scientists have been doing for centuries. Until someone else comes along and disproves them, it’s assumed accurate. For example, we now know the Freud was wrong about most of his interpretations. Objective research would be the only thing that could come to conclusion as strongly as it did.

While I find myself treated by people who are overly subjective about things and rely on experience and emotion too much. I do remind myself that being overly objective has caused as many problems subjective conclusions.

I think our biggest issue today is finding the balance between objectivity and subjectivity. Right now, it’s seemingly rare to find this when discussing things. Most people are either overly objective or overly subjective. Where’s the balance?

I had an interesting thought that eventually turned into a dilema for me about an actual (objective) “event” or a dreamt (subjective) “event”– I slept alone except for my dog at the foot of my bed. And so since the “subjective” study of the mind; psychology, subjectively states that the mind cannot differentiate between reality and a dream… my dog and I will never know.

That proves that objectivity technically needs not people to prove, it just is something that is or just has happened which means one thing. Objectivity are fundamental events that never changes that does not require necessarily people to prove. Subjectivity are single views of that fundamental event which occurs to the perspective of either one or many people. If however someone lies or does not understand about the fundamental event the confusion lays simply in what people believe in a fundamental event which is only told from a lie or from a misunderstanding. This is why the commonality method usually works in determining what are the fundamental facts of an event is. The idea that everything is subjective gives into a belief that nothing can happen outside of the human perspective. Which can only mean that objectivity always happens whether we see that or not and once we know that are we honest about what happens or do we lie to benefit our own personal perspective taking out the possibility of being that we could just be wrong or that we know we are wrong so we will lie anyway. So subjectivity always changes from person to person but objectivity always stays the same regardless of people’s perspective even if people lie even further.

You mistake “objective” to mean physical or something literal. This again is a science point of view only. As defined many times above and by Jonathan, Objectivity does not have to be literal or allow you to observe it. Your dream could be real or not but your awareness is what concerns you: did that really happen physically or was it a dream only? Or if it is a dream what happens if it becomes true in the future? That involves the study of psychology–not objectivity. Objectivity would fall under the theory of Knowledge –not the study of how the mind practically works (thinks). One is a conceptual level and the other is well– practical. I distinguish between psychology and philosophy this way because practical people tend to only see things one way: as literally being true; in such a way, these people mix modes of what is conceptual and the literal. That mix of modes is where deception can occur in reasoning. Thus, psychology often tends to lead people away from correct thinking in such the students learn all is subjective and meaningless without more information. Correct thinking refers to a way which yields certainty as a result which ironically is more practical than guessing blindly or historical based knowledge or statistical reasoning.
Jonathan, to be clear, you misunderstood my context about the term I refer to as “Psycho”. You too are mixing modes: using the common definition in speech for what I define the term in my context specifically. You make yourself the alpha dog by telling ME what I meant –which is ridiculous. I made the statement and it should follow that I TELL YOU what I meant by an explanation. I expressed why I use the term above in earlier post with you. You must have not understood what I said or perhaps you forgot. You have no right to assign definition to someone else’s statements. I have no right to assume Shakespehere is referring to sex with his mother in the Sonnet 14. If I had an explanation for my statement I am sure an expert on Shakesphere would love to hear a rational explanation to why I think such a crazy idea. You and other over-emotional people mix modes again perhaps: mixing the right to free speech and you actually saying whatever you want without reason. People who say whatever they want because they have a right are just babbling much of the time and are rightfully ignored. Rational people say things that can be explained which differs from baby bable. Human beings are to be rational –not resort to beast like behavior. I would venture to say a lion thinks he can go wherever he wants the same way you feel you have a right to express an opinion whether or not other people want to hear it. Rational means justification for whatever you say. Showing good reasons is to show TRUE reasons. Unlike me at a professional Physics convention screaming: “The Yankees rule baseball,” over ten times, is out of place and not relevant to any topic but just irrational. But hell it’s my right to say whatever right? Yep and it’s the right of others to have me removed from the room too! Sometimes what you say is NOT really free.

@Roy
This is such long thread its amazing actually. I have been on this thread right from the beginning so I probably have not seen your very early posts. The whole thing why I responded about the fact you called me a psycho just as an example rather than meaning rude helps clear things up. I mean this that even when we are on the computer that humans have emotions and are likely to such an example. I mean you have chosen an example that will not make react in the way I did. Then you should realise that mentioning psyco on anyone as an example creates a window of natural reaction, I mean do you think I am a robot with no emotions that with whatever you say that mentions my name that how ever I may react is perfectly normal from a subjective point of view. Thank you for clarifying that we agree that objectivity does not require people to define but I feel that the way you explained your analysis of the whole dream thing did not show much in terms of how we define any objective facts dream. If you look it up, when we dream, we have brain activity, which that there is a scientific facts about dreams which are not necessarily subjective. Overall I am seeing that subjective relies much more how content is communicated that makes it believable and objectivity is more about a simplified version of how we explain what is actually happening when are using our subjective minds/perception. You can call over emotional but again you clarified another fact about subjectivity it includes emotions even fake ones. What’s funny is have I had to call you something like psycho as an example to make a point and written something that explains that I made a presumption about how someone will react.My point is when you write certain examples maybe you should think of another that you would think would not expect any particular person to react as response as if it was rude. Pretend you are me for a sec, as apparently I am highly emotional, do you honestly believe if you saw a sentence that said “The topic is objectivity and psycho majors skip to what people actually think. Jonathan and Eversion are clear examples of this.” I mean this i supposed to be a discussion not lets pick people who believe are psychos and make a point out of it. This may sound like a rant but I have right to stand up for myself just as much as you do at least I do not call people a psycho to make a point. Okay that is the last time I am going to say it. So you can say what you want in response to what I have just said or you could just leave it and continue to discuss your opinion without having to refer to people in a way that would natually provoke as it has been so obviously here. You see what is happening here this is psychology at its best, and purely subjective because me and Roy are willing to talk about each other as if we do not care about how we might respond to misunderstandings. Said my part, and hopefully we can get back to the differences between subjective and objective not as if it is versus each other.

The easiest way for me to look at it is in sports. The 100 meter dash is an objective sport…the objective is to get to the finish line in the fastest time, and you control your own destiny. Gymnastics and diving are subjective sports, because the winner is determined by judges (a third party) based on their subjective opinion. In other words, it’s the difference between a fact and an opinion. Facts are provable, opinions vary on certain events.

I generally agree with you that judges create a subjective opinion and that sports won by speed is objective. However there is an issue regarding subjective judgments in sports. These judgments can be based on fundamental skills which are regarded essential objective needs. This shows that even though judgement is subjective, there is always a form of manipulation due to combining necessary facts. These its harder to separate objectivity and subjectivity because much media mixes the two intentionally to make a point.

While reading i came up with many applications for objectivity and subjectivity. For instance, in a pickup for women you could make objective appeals of gifting objects to them and subjective appeals of promising they will enjoy the date. Then I read that the author groups objectivity with sciences and subjectivity with arts and that bothered me. It makes me feel that my use of objectivity and subjectivity were out of place. Needless to say I thought of other uses that could are more appropriate such as using objectivity of walking away with shoes for low price and the subjectivity being falling in love with the shoes as appeals.

@Roy I apologise if I came off offensive as it was not my intention. As you said the term psycho was mentioned in a particular context of which I obviously misunderstood. In a digital world who can blame me as the context in what you said can easily sound ambiguous. This is a perfect example of subjectivity as misunderstandings is a common human trait especially In the digita world where the universal body language cannot be read. There are many levels of objectivity which can overlap with subjectivity due to mutual understanding whereas extreme objectivity is something we as humans May never understand due to human nature making things we do not know more complex than it actually is.

Example-1:
Objective Thinking: a man sees a beautiful lady from backside in a half naked cloths in a dim light of dance bar, he enjoys her dance objectively! because all what he see and feel is from his physical senses (Mind & Nerves)

Subjective Thinking: when he see her closer in a spot light, he feels shame as she was his sister, this is subjective thinking because all what he see now is from soul through the way of heart.

Example-2:
Objective Thinking: a goat sees a smoke, she doesnot ran out, when she sees fire and feel heat then she ran out.

Subjective Thinking: when a human sees a smoke he concludes there might be fire and ran out.

After reading the original article and judging it (subjective) clear, concise, and for the most part, objective, reading the comments was a trip. If this conversation by an extremely cloistered group ever gained wide exposure, a considerable portion of the literate population (subjective) would not be able to follow or truly get some of the more erudite opinions (objective). Nor the stupidity of some of the rebuttals (s) you get it. Would that this were harnessable, we’d have the next Enron.

Subjectivity: Human perspective on the experience of truth. eg. Any human intervention with the world we live in.

Because of the Butterfly effect, there is question of whether in nature if an event occurs outside of human perspective, does it still exist?

In this situation the observations and investigation by human perspective after the event will determine possible scientific fact.

As part of my gathering of objectivity, objectivity can have unexpected new discoveries. In other words, to human perspective it is new, but these discoveries can be evolved or already existing in the universe throughout time without any human encounter. This theory in itself explains that events can happen proven or not without human science or perspective.

For example, people during Christopher Columbus’s time believed the world was flat until Columbus disproved the perception and concluded the world was round because he did not fall of the edge.

This shows that in human nature we can choose to believe we determine proof of existence of anything without discovery. The willingness to discover new or existing phenomenon is our human gateway to interact with the objective world.

In other words for subjectivity to exist, objectivity needs to exist which implies there is a key relationship to these different terms and I believe that is the different forms of human interaction.

A complicated factor in this discussion is how do our human perspectives differentiate fiction to non-fiction? Do cameras always show us the truth? Is our knowledge based on a lie, truth or both?

I understand that to believe everything is subjective is an interpretation based on another group/individual interpretation of a real event. Unlike objectivity, subjectivity is human viewpoints of an event which can possibly change over time logically or illogically.

I hope this helps the discussion and I look forward to any comments or criticism.

Does that mean that God derives his\her objectivity from majority vote considering that god is both Omnipresent and capable of seeing through other people or feeling what they feel. If god derived objectivity only from feelings or peoples thoughts wouldn’t that mean that god wouldn’t know what he/she is looking at because I would think that it would be like coming up with your own idea of how a picture looks like after being told by 6 billion people how a picture looks like which in either case would mean that gods truth would be purely subjective considering that god has to observe something and assign it meaning as well which would means that not even god knows what is happening if he\she was the one who made it.

Feelings and thoughts are subjective views even if there is an element of truth in those thoughts. There are many different views on G-d and whether or not any individual or group believes in G-d or not it’s a question of how we as an individual or group treats those differences through actions and reactions that defines ourselves to others. As individuals or group we have the freedom to believe in a deity or deities however do we abuse our freedom just to satisfy ourselves assert our belief onto others?

So, objectively speaking or subjectively speaking, Is there or is there not any difference between objectivity and subjectivity ? Do objectivity and subjectivity really exist, and if they do are they one and the same ? Do truth and falsehood, good and evil, right and wrong, god and the devil really exist or don’t they really exist.
This seems like a very poor appreciation and a misinterpretation of both these words.
Can what is true for one possibly be false for another ? Can one man’s meat truly be another man’s poison ?

Leave a Response

Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Written by : Manisha Kumar.
and updated on September 6, 2011

Articles on DifferenceBetween.net are general information, and are not intended to substitute for professional advice. The information is "AS IS", "WITH ALL FAULTS". User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages.
See more about :objective, subjective